Asmaa20 spammed dpReview with the same stuff he hit several other photo sites with:

New photo-shoot with LED lights. No need to use strobe any more, and you can see the end results before you take your photo or video.

Indeed. You can see how harsh and nasty the light is, deep, sharp shadows, and glare off that poor model's forehead.

What a horrible, horrible waste of some first-class makeup.

But, what you can't see "before you take your photo" is how badly you blew focus in the second shot. Now, from the EXIF, we can tell you were shooting a manual focus lens, apparently at an aperture too large for your focusing ability.

Although that sort of hard, edgy makeup cries out for smaller apertures and "cruel" sharpness.

But you needed ISO 800 to make this particular mess with your underpowered lights, so stopping down isn't possible.

These photos were lit by a single LED light bank and a reflector, and it gave very satisfying results.

The second shot is trash, and I wonder how the first would have held up full size, instead of web size.

Here are the LED panels we use at [spam url deleted] They are cheeper and lighter, and they have a very powerful out put.

No, they don't. That's just a 72 watt panel. The claim on that site that it's "the equivalent of a 1500W filament light" is pure deception.

High wattage filament lights have a luminous efficacy 23 lumens/watt for anything larger than 300W. So, 1500W of filament light is 34,500 lumens.

The 72W panel LED uses 1200 LEDs, that means

28.75 lumens/LED (34,500 lumens/1200)

0.06 W/LED (72W/1200)

That's a luminous efficacy of 479 lumens/W.

The best that has been done with 60mW t1-3/4 packages, the prefocused sort used in panels like that one is 85 lumens/W. (which makes the panel equivalent to a 250W halogen, not a 1500W, LOL).

The best that's been done with an LED in any form factor is a large, heat-sink mounted square 5 emitter chip, at 140 lumens/W.

A perfect light source that converts 100% of the electrical power you feed into it into a photographically useful spectral mix from 400-700nm (pure visible light, no wasted infrared or UV) has a luminous effacicy of 251 lumens/watt.

So, not only are these clowns claiming about
six times better output
than the LEDs that they're using are actually capable of producing, but they're also claiming about
three times better output
than any LEDs on this planet, and
almost twice the output
that it's theoretically possible to get from a "perfect" light source.

Next up, a device that lets your car run on water.

Now, here's the real rub...

You've got 72W of LEDs at an actual luminous efficacy of 85 lumens/watt, which is 6125 lumens.

The images, such as they are, were shot at 1/125 sec. That's...

49 lumen-seconds.

That's "energy", the thing that makes pictures.

A common 15mm Xenon flash tube has a luminous efficacy of 40 lumens/W. Which means, you only need...

1.22 Watt-seconds (49 lumen-seconds/40 lumens/watt) to produce the same lighting.

Except that even a speedlight like a Nikon SB-900 has a capacity of about 70 Watt-seconds. It can match the LED light when you turn the speedlight down 6 full stops. Or, you can shoot at f11, instead of (I'm guessing) f1.2 (why else a manual focus lens, but to use an old 50mm f1.2, in a desperate attempt to get something useful from that inadequate LED panel).

Heck, the popup flash on a D7000 is 5 W-s, or 4 times more energy than the LED panel.

Even if you didn't shoot at 1/125 sec, like the Big City spammer did, and went down to 1/60 sec (a barely containable speed for "civilian" portrait subjects, the LED panels just don't make it.

Your 209AS is a 14W unit, so that's a whopping 1,200 L at 85 L/W.

The Westcott "spiderlite" in the article has 6 50W CFL, 300W total, and 21,000 L at 70 L/W (LED isn't really ""much-much better" than CFL, as you stated. LED "mongers" lie, even worse than CFL mongers).

The Xenon tubes in speedlights and studio strobes have luminous efficacy of about 42 L/W, and they're pulse devices, with energy ratings in W-S, not power ratings in W, so you don't have to multiply by time.

So, at 1/60 sec, you've got...

20 L-S for a 209AS panel

100 L-S for a "Big City" panel

350 L-S for a Westcott Spiderlite

2,900 L-S for a common 4 AA battery speedlight

12,600 L-S for the "entry level" studio strobes in the article

26,880 L-S for my Paul Buff Einsteins

Yes, that really is about 1000 times the energy of the 209A, 268 times the energy of a $900 Big City LED panel.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.